Aphra Brandreth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Transport Connections · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps her Department is taking to help improve rural transport connections.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Transport Connections · Hansard source

  More

  In my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency, villages like Little Budworth have no bus services at all, and are miles from any public transport. Even where a school bus exists, families tell me that if a child misses that single service, there is simply no alternative. In villages like Milton Green, families are forced to rely on infrequent and unreliable rural buses to get children as young as 11 to school—buses that often simply do not turn up. Parents have asked me a simple question: why can they not pay for spare seats on dedicated school buses that are already running? Will the Minister work with me and local councils to deliver a more flexible, common-sense approach for rural families?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. From Tilston to Tattenhall and from Acton to Audlem, poor mobile connectivity is all too common across Chester South and Eddisbury, but the House need not take my word for it. Earlier this year, I launched a mobile connectivity survey, and I take this opportunity to thank the 544 residents who took the time to complete it. It is vital to get the real experiences of people living and working in Chester South and Eddisbury, because, as we have heard from other Members today, the level of coverage that Ofcom and the mobile network operators claim, all too often does not reflect reality. Ofcom gives statistics based on modelling, not on-the-ground evidence. It does not differentiate between 4G and 5G coverage and, crucially, it does not test network capacity. In my mobile survey, I asked constituents on a scale of 1 to 10—where 1 is very poor and 10 is excellent—to rate different aspects of their mobile service. The average score for both the signal to make and receive calls, and the average reliability for calls was just 3 out of 10. The ability to stream or download larger files scored even lower, and many shared their experiences of poor levels of signal and data making it impossible to even download messages or emails. I asked whether constituents could get a usable phone signal in the main areas of their home. Of the 544 respondents, almost 300 said they could not. It is worth pausing to reflect on that. More than half my constituents surveyed cannot get a usable mobile phone signal in their own home. That is simply unacceptable in 21st-century Britain, and the consequences are very real. We know that since the pandemic, more people are working from home, making reliable connectivity vital. According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly 10 million people in the UK are hybrid workers, with a further 5 million working exclusively from home. It is now a fundamental part of our modern economy. If the Government are serious about economic growth, addressing poor mobile connectivity, particularly in rural areas, must be part of that plan. The impact is not only economic, but social. Digital isolation compounds physical isolation. Not being able to rely on a mobile connection to contact friends, family or support services can have serious negative impacts on mental health. There is also a safety dimension to this issue. As more services become digital by default, rural residents are increasingly disadvantaged, unable to reliably take calls from doctors, carers or other essential providers. Constituents have raised concerns about being unable to make calls in emergencies, particularly in more remote rural areas. That is not simply inconvenient; it is dangerous. What my constituents need is meaningful action. I urge the Minister to consider the views of people across Chester South and Eddisbury who completed my mobile survey, and to share in the Government’s response what steps are currently being taken to work with providers, particularly in the rural context, to address the unacceptable gaps in coverage. We need reliable mobile connectivity for work, for school, to make doctor’s appointments and to connect with friends. I will continue to push the Government, so that all villages—including Audlem, Wybunbury, Wrenbury, Malpas, Tattenhall, Tilston, Farndon, Christleton and so many more—get the connection that they rightly expect and deserve.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  With World Book Day coming up on Thursday 5 March, I have launched a short story competition for primary school pupils across Chester South and Eddisbury, encouraging them to go all-in and use their imagination through reading and creative writing. At a time when children are spending more and more time on phones and screens, fostering a love of books, storytelling and creativity is more important than ever, so will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging children across Chester South and Eddisbury to take part in that competition and in encouraging everyone to get involved in celebrating World Book Day?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Woodland Creation · Hansard source

  More

  I am standing in.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Woodland Creation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate and clearly setting out the key benefits for us all of our woodlands, in both rural and urban areas. We have had a good debate, and all of the many contributions were about the strength of support for our vital woodlands. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke of his own experience planting trees—he is clearly a man of many talents. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) highlighted the importance of young trees and the need for trees to thrive. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) is a fantastic local champion, and put forward strong arguments for expanding the forest of Marston Vale. We heard about the opportunities for tree planting and the areas for greater focus to protect and grow our woodlands. I am grateful to all hon. Members who shared the special and vital woodland areas in their constituencies. There has been welcome cross-party consensus about the benefits that woodlands bring to communities and our environment. As the Member of Parliament for Chester South and Eddisbury, I see those benefits at first hand: I have the privilege of having Delamere forest in my constituency. It is 927 hectares of woodland—the largest woodland area in the county of Cheshire—and a wonderful example of one of our most diverse natural ecosystems and habitats. Beyond removing and storing carbon, woodlands such as Delamere provide a home for thousands of species of mammals, birds, invertebrates, plants and fungi. Oak trees alone can support more than 2,300 species, and 326 are entirely dependent on oak for their survival. Delamere forest also supports our local economy through its appeal to visitors and tourists, and is home to a wide range of species, including beavers, which have been reintroduced into a nature reserve on the edge of the forest—demonstrating the vital role woodland plays for nature, climate and local communities alike. The previous Government recognised the importance of woodland, publishing their England trees action plan, which set out a blueprint for how to protect, enhance and restore nature. The nature for climate fund was backed by £750 million to support peat restoration and woodland creation and management. The current Government have committed to establishing three new national forests in England, planting millions of trees and creating new woodland. What we need to see now is their delivery. It is estimated that the global demand for wood products will treble by 2050, while supply is set to drop in the next 20 to 30 years, increasing pressure on supply chains. As hon. Members pointed out, the UK imports 80% of its timber, making it the second largest net importer, with only China importing more. The Forestry Commission is clear that that situation must be improved. With that in mind, what action is the Minister taking to increase the percentage of productive species, as requested by the Forestry Commission and Natural England, to protect rural employment and reduce import reliance? Wood can also act as a substitute for more carbon-intensive materials, such as concrete and steel, making timber equally vital for decarbonising the construction industry, which contributes 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions. How does the Minister envisage timber helping to reduce emissions when the UK is so reliant on importing it? Does she agree that bolstering domestic supply should be a priority, bringing benefits for the environment and our economy? The Government tell us that they are pursuing an economic growth agenda, although I have to say we have seen little evidence of that ambition coming to fruition—in fact, quite the opposite. One reason for that is the Government’s persistent tendency to fall back on bureaucracy and red tape—or, in this case, green tape—which stifles ambition and actively disincentivises woodland creation. In the light of that, what assessment has the Minister made of enabling planting on lower-value uplands? Has she given any consideration to revising planning policies to enable such planting, or to reviewing the weighting given to archaeology when determining or refusing forestry consents? With the benefits that forestry brings, such as timber, habitat and amenity, landowners should be incentivised to plant and grow trees, and advantageous tax benefits are a key method of encouraging forestry. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will look to incentives for tree planting as part of the future SFI scheme, when it reopens, as the previous Conservative Government did? His Majesty’s official Opposition are clear: the family farm tax and the family business tax should be scrapped in their entirety. The Government’s partial U-turn does not go far enough, so what assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of withdrawing the family farm and business taxes on tree planting? Finally, some have shared their concerns that the voluntary woodland carbon code does not provide businesses with a sufficient financial incentive to plant more trees. Including trees in the emissions trading scheme can see the price of an individual credit rise by up to 67%. I understand that that has the potential to remove and store up to 19 million tonnes of carbon emissions from our atmosphere. As I understand it, the Government have acknowledged that they hope to include nature-based carbon removals, which I hope will include woodland creation, by 2028. I ask the Minister to prioritise that work to avoid any delays. It is in all our interests to create a more resilient, productive and nature-rich landscape, and securing a diverse range of forests and woodlands will help to achieve that aim. Woodlands and forests have always been part of our country’s landscape. They have inspired writers and composers, supported our economy, and been playgrounds for our children and places where we can all connect with nature. They are part of the fabric of our community and the fabric of our country, and with that in mind I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government are alive to the threats facing woodlands.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Rural GPs: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a wonderful speech. Is she going to come on to the pressures of house building? There is huge pressure for new homes, and many of our rural areas already struggle with insufficient infrastructure. I am working with our GP in Handbridge, where their site is now too small and not fit for purpose given the larger population that the practice now has. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as pressure for more homes is put on constituencies like ours in Cheshire, it is vital that existing residents have access to GPs that are in suitable premises, fit for the numbers and the older population that often use them?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  23. What steps he is taking to reduce energy bills.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  A recent survey conducted by Censuswide shows that two thirds of households with heat pumps say that their heating costs have increased, driven by electricity prices that are four times higher than gas. With energy bills now £190 higher, despite this Government promising to cut them by £300, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that his choices are making it harder for households to make the switch to greener heating options, and that, unlike the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, they are leaving households with higher bills?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  There are schools and nurseries in my constituency, such as Jigsaw nursery on Wrexham Road and Delamere Academy, which is just off the busy A556, where children have to navigate fast-moving traffic. Does the hon. Lady agree that proximity to schools and nurseries should be treated as an essential consideration when determining safe speed limits on roads?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sustainable Drainage Systems · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate. He spoke passionately about this issue, the impact of heavy rainfall and flooding in his constituency, and the consequences for residents when developments do not adequately address the need for sustainable drainage and for SuDS to be maintained. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made some important points, particularly about the need for more skilled professionals in this area. The previous Government’s plan for water, published in 2023, recognised that sustainable drainage systems are an effective means of reducing surface water flooding, and committed to their use in all new developments. The current Government are continuing that approach through the publication of national standards for sustainable drainage systems. As I understand it, although the Government are yet to make a final decision, they are pursuing a planning policy-based approach to SuDS, rather than commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act, which would require all developments to include SuDS in order for planning approval to be granted. If schedule 3 is implemented, developers will be required not only to include SuDS in new developments, but to ensure that designs are approved before construction begins. As the Government’s national standards are non-statutory, the Minister will be aware that questions have been raised about enforceability. There is a concern that developers may seek to identify ways to evade the guidance. Is the Minister therefore concerned that, however well-intentioned, the non-statutory guidance may not achieve its intended purpose? I note that although there are calls for clarity on the adoption of multi-property developments by an appropriate authority, there is no clarity about which authority that should be. Is the Minister’s Department looking at that, or would it be willing to clarify that? I turn briefly to developments that have been built but have not yet been adopted. The Minister may be aware that research from the Home Builders Federation, published in October 2025, found that in developments of 10 or more homes built in the past three years, 97% of new sewers and 98% of SuDS remain unadopted. The research also found significant inconsistencies across local authorities. As the Minister knows, local authorities are reluctant to adopt roads until sewers are formally adopted. I want to briefly mention two examples from my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency that illustrate the issues all too clearly. Saighton Camp, which is just outside the city of Chester, and the Wychwood estate in Wybunbury both have unadopted incomplete infrastructure. Residents have been left in limbo, with developers moving on, the water company refusing to adopt the sewerage system until the developers complete the work and the local authority refusing to adopt the road until the sewers are formally adopted. Alongside this, there are frequent issues with the swales, which are meant to provide sustainable drainage yet are ineffective. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the issue being a procedural one? Does she believe there is scope to make the adopting process more consistent to provide clarity for residents? The Government have set a target to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, but given their current performance, no one really believes they can possibly achieve that. The Government’s own figures show that in their first year in power the net number of new additional dwellings and the number of new homes built both went down. Can the Minister provide assurances that the Government will not abandon their approach to SuDS, and will recognise them as a continuing priority that will not be traded off for other land uses in pursuit of their top-down housing targets? When businesses are facing increased financial pressure and costs as a result of the Government’s disastrous economic policy, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect of those policies on SuDS, which may add further costs to new homes? On the topic of development, it would be remiss not to mention the role that farming can play in water management and sustainable drainage. Nearly 300,000 homes have been built on prime farmland, with an extra 1,400 hectares used for renewable energy projects, despite more than enough previously developed brownfield land waiting for regeneration. Under the previous Conservative Government, through the countryside stewardship scheme and sustainable farming incentives, farmers were encouraged to implement practices that would mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding. Can the Minister provide assurances that water management grants will be part of the SFI scheme when it finally reopens? Internal drainage boards do a fantastic job of managing water levels and reducing the risk from flooding within their districts. Their work involves maintenance and improvement, and they currently play a significant part in advising on planning applications regarding SuDS. Can the Minister provide assurances that IDBs will continue to have a prominent role in the planning process? Furthermore, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has called for, have the Government considered the merits of bringing flexibility to the relationship between the Environment Agency, IDBs and land managers? In 2024, the previous Government provided IDBs with £75 million to modernise and upgrade resilience assets for farms and rural communities. Is the Minister working closely with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office to monitor the consequences of the recent storms and the related funding of IDBs? I know that all Members here today, and Members from across the country, will have constituents who are affected by flooding. We know how damaging and disruptive it can be. It is therefore important that the Government set out a clear approach as to whether SuDS are viewed as best practice or a standard approach. Clarity is needed so that the industry knows where it stands, and our constituents can have confidence in the legislation and guidance that is provided to developers. Part of that will involve ensuring a prominent role for local risk management authorities, such as IDBs, so that the best possible sustainable approaches can be implemented to mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Project Gigabit: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The new Project Gigabit contract for Cheshire, expected to be in place by the spring, will cover only around a third of the premises in Chester South and Eddisbury that currently lack adequate broadband. I have raised this issue repeatedly, but I am still without a clear answer. Can the Minister now set out what specific plans exist for the remaining 10,000 homes and businesses, mostly in rural areas, that are not included in this new contract? When can those premises realistically expect to be connected?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I sit, called for Lord Mandelson to appear before us on multiple occasions to explain the circumstances and process of his unusual appointment. He did not adhere to that request. Does the shadow Minister agree that Lord Mandelson’s failure to come before the Committee sends the signal that the Government wanted to hide something, that there were issues in the appointment and vetting process, and that, had there been transparency in the early stages of his appointment, we would have avoided sending someone wholly unfit to fulfil one of the UK’s most senior diplomatic roles?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that British Chagossians will be given no say in how a trust fund is to be spent, and that it is simply wrong that they are being given no opportunity to have any personal say in the matters that will affect them and their futures?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  On every level, this is a bad deal. From the absurdity of paying £34.7 billion for the privilege of ceding our own territory to the implications for defence, from putting at risk one of the most pristine marine environments in the world to the complete disregard shown to the British Chagossians themselves, there is so much I could focus my remarks on today, but I want to highlight two issues in particular: perception and national security. Perception matters in geopolitics. The messages we send, intentionally or otherwise, are read closely by our allies and by our adversaries. They carry very real consequences. I need not remind the Minister of the comments made by the President of the United States just last week. Those remarks materially change the context in which this House is considering the deal. The 1966 treaty between the UK and the US agreed to retain sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. It is clear that any attempt to surrender sovereignty violates international law and I commend my Conservative colleagues in both Houses for delaying the Bill’s passage. But delay is not enough. The surrender Bill should be pulled in its entirety. The UK-US relationship is built on trust, particularly in defence and security. When the President states publicly that a deal will damage that relationship and should not proceed, that this deal is an “act of great stupidity”, the Government should listen and act. I am not suggesting that the United States sees the UK as an unreliable partner—we have stood shoulder to shoulder for decades—but this deal is different. If it proceeds, it will reduce the operability of UK and US forces in the region, diminish our strategic reach, and weaken our influence. Responsibility for that lies squarely with this Government. The Prime Minister is in China today. Beijing will also be watching closely. China will welcome any increase in autonomy in the region and, with it, the opportunity to decimate the marine protected areas surrounding the Chagos islands with its fishing fleet. We know that those vessels will not simply be there to fish. They will be there to gather intelligence, probe our defences and gain strategic advantage near Diego Garcia. The message this deal sends to our adversaries is clear: the UK is retreating, diminishing and weakening. That is not the message we should be sending in an increasingly hostile and unpredictable world. I want to make one brief point on national security, which I have raised in previous debates and on which we have heard from many Members today. Under the Pelindaba treaty, neither the UK nor the US will be able to store nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia. We now have confirmation of that from the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius. That restriction significantly reduces our capability in a critical region, and weakens the security of both ourselves and our allies. Ultimately, the deal is not in the interests of the United Kingdom. It is not in the interests of protecting one of the most important marine environments on the planet, it is not in the interests of the British Chagossians, who have been ignored throughout this process, and it is certainly not in the interests of the British taxpayer. Those on the Labour Benches know that another U-turn is looming. The deal is indefensible. Today, Members have an opportunity to do the right thing, support this motion and bring this surrender deal to an end.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is vital that we address this issue to ensure that UK-trained doctors are prioritised for vacancies over international applicants—the Secretary of State is making important points about that. We need those places to be opened up for UK medics immediately, so will he explain why the Bill will not come into force immediately after Royal Assent but instead includes provision for it to come into force “on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. He is making an important point about the previous Government’s achievements and strategies in this policy area. Since then, communities in Cheshire and Warrington have not seen a single new publicly delivered broadband connection in more than two years. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government must move faster on this important issue?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Rural Broadband: Installation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an important speech that reflects what we see in my constituency, where more than 15,000 premises are still without acceptable broadband speeds. I wrote to the Minister responsible before Christmas, and when they finally responded to my letter, there was no answer for the nearly 10,000 premises from Willington to Delamere Park and beyond that are unlikely to be covered by a new framework contract. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must consider either reopening the voucher scheme or providing an answer on how those homes and businesses will get the broadband speeds they need for today’s digital world?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. My constituents are deeply concerned by proposed cuts to police community support officers across Cheshire. The Labour police and crime commissioner, Dan Price, was silent on the issue, seemingly content to see numbers slashed across the county until residents and local MPs spoke out. Now he seeks to present himself as campaigning to save police community support officers, while proposing to substantially increase the precept, and all at the same time as planning to increase spending on his office by £513,000 next year. Does the Prime Minister agree that that represents a failure of leadership, and that that money would be far better spent on increasing the number of PCSOs on our streets?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make progress, because we are nearly out of time. Instead of pursuing the Bill, the Government could withdraw it, and redirect the vast sums involved towards addressing that shortfall and genuinely strengthening our national security.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are short of time. Ultimately, the Lords amendment is about accountability to Parliament and to the electorate. There is no mandate for the Bill. If the Government choose to force it through using their majority, they must, at the very least, be accountable for the cost. British Chagossians are the forgotten people of this Bill. They may have been forgotten by the Government, but they have not been forgotten by Conservative Members. We continue to oppose the Bill with them firmly in our minds. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that Greenland’s sovereignty and right to self-determination rest with the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The question is simple: why is that same right not afforded to the British Chagossians? The Bill has profound implications for our national security and public expenditure. The amendments tabled by Opposition peers are there for a reason: not for political gain, but to make a bad Bill slightly less damaging, to introduce safeguards, to offer some reassurance to the British taxpayer, and to ensure that the voices of the British Chagossian people are finally heard.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill goes to the very heart of our national security, the safety of the British people, our global reach and our operational effectiveness in two of the most volatile and unpredictable regions of the world: the Indo-Pacific and the middle east. It also raises serious questions about the cost of this deal to the British taxpayer, which amounts to £34.7 billion. Even in the short time since the Bill was first brought to the House, the world has become even more unstable, yet the Government remain content to press ahead with the Bill. I struggle to see how it makes us safer, considering the requirement “to expeditiously inform” Mauritius of operational activity, and considering that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty. The implications of the Bill for the basing of nuclear weapons, which are vital to our security and to our deterrence, and which have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the past, should concern every Member of the House. We need further clarity and assurance from the Government on that point. That brings me to the £28 billion shortfall in the defence budget that the Chief of the Defence Staff recently presented to the Prime Minister. It does not take a mathematician to see the point that I am making; indeed, the maths is so basic that I suggest that even the Chancellor could work it out.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  Families in my constituency are deeply concerned about the impact of social media on their children’s wellbeing. Just last week a headteacher told me that schools need the Government to act, and young people themselves describe the real damage that social media is doing to their mental health. The Conservative party has shown leadership by calling for clear age limits, because we recognise that protecting childhood is about setting responsible boundaries. Parents are asking for action now, so why are the Government not making a clear commitment today?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Horse and Rider Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for that really important intervention. We need to understand what the removal of our countryside and green belt will mean for people using rural roads, and the real impact that some of these developments will have. For riders and their horses—I should add carriage drivers, who are also often overlooked—the most obvious dangers on the road are fast-moving vehicles, but less obvious hazards can be just as serious. A plastic bag in a ditch, or a cyclist passing too closely, might startle a horse. Harry described a cyclist squeezing between a rider and a car, badly startling the horse. Cyclists might not be aware of their impact, but such incidents can pose a danger to all road users. As we have heard, many drivers remain unaware that the highway code requires them to pass a horse at no more than 10 mph and with at least 2 metres’ clearance. We must do more to improve education and ensure that horse riders are properly reflected in road safety policy.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Horse and Rider Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Just last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Harry Zimman, a constituent who is a keen rider. He highlighted two significant issues. The first is access to bridleways. Even in areas with excellent riding routes, such as Cheshire, riders must often travel along narrow and winding lanes to reach them. Consequently, they can quickly find themselves in dangerous situations, because even the best-trained horses and most attentive riders cannot eliminate the fact that horses are living, thinking animals that may react suddenly to perceived danger. Bridleways are too often overlooked in planning and infrastructure decisions. For example, in my constituency the Tarvin bypass cut across a bridleway and was replaced only by signage, effectively cutting off riders.